Janet Jernigan: MIBOR Scam

Janet Jernigan is listed as an officer with MIBOR. Recently, I filed a complaint with with Janet and the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors regarding Scott Veerkamp. My complaint included documentation of Loan Steering and Predatory Lending.

Unfortunately, Janet Jernigan refuses to respond to my complaint regarding Yield Spread Premium. Therefore, I am asking the following question to members of the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors: Is it possible for someone from MIBOR to explain how Predatory Lending “protects and promotes the interest of the client?”

Here are the details of my complaint…

In doing some research on the Code of Ethics, I found the following information listed on the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors website:

1. “REALTORS shall be careful at all times to present a true picture in their advertising and their representations to the public.” 2. “The Code of Ethics is a promise to the public that when dealing with a real estate agent who is a REALTOR, they can expect honest and ethical treatment in all transaction- related matters.” 3. “Only REALTORS pledge to abide by the Code of Ethics, and only REALTORS are held accountable for their ethical behavior.”

Previously, I provided documentation of Loan Steering on behalf of Scott Veerkamp and his organization. MIBOR was informed that Scott was receiving “kickbacks” on Predatory Loans. To my knowledge, MIBOR did nothing to prevent Scott from preying on the public with Yield Spread Premium. Here are 2 examples of Predatory Lending with YSP and junk fees from Scott Veerkamp…

In addition to the loan documentation, please take time to review items 1-8 in the information listed below. I would appreciate a written response from the Metropolitan Indianapolis Board of Realtors regarding this information.

Items 1-4 in group A: 1. Please explain how a $4,799 Yield Spread Premium “protects and promotes the interest of the client.” 2. Please provide documentation that shows how Scott “protected and promoted the interest of his client” when he attempted to sell a $120,000 property on a land contract with a “due on sale clause.” 3. Please explain how Scott honored his fiduciary responsibility with his client when he made approximately $26,000 on a $120,000 property listed with REMAX Central in his own neighborhood. 4. Please provide documentation that shows how Scott “did his very best” when you refused to conduct an open house on a property located “one block down the street” from the house he was living in.

Items 5-8 in group B: 5. Please ask Scott to explain why he removed my property from the multiple listing service after I filed my complaint with MIBOR. A. How was I supposed to sell this property when Scott refused to drive (one block) conduct an open house? B. How was I supposed to sell this property when Scott removed it from the MLS? 6. The National Association of Mortgage Brokers stated it is not necessary to pay an application fee. Please explain how a $960 application fee “protects and promotes the interest of the client.” 7. NAMB says processing fees are a violation of their code of ethics because “they’re generally not related to any actual service performed by a broker.” Please explain how a $500 processing fee “protects and promotes the interest of the client.” 8. Scott ran an advertisement in Christian Phone Book with the following statement: “We will do our very best to help you get the lowest possible interest rates at the lowest possible price.” A. Please provide documentation that explains how a $4,799 Yield Spread Premium represents “the lowest possible interest rate.” B. Likewise, please explain how a $960 application fee represents “the lowest possible price.”

Response: MIBOR knows Predatory Lending represents the extreme opposite of “protecting and promoting the interest of the client.” Therefore, they are unable to provide a response that has merit.